About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
MSNBC 15
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >>> there is no doubt that u.s. relationships with iran and pakistan are both complex and problematic. earlier we reported on the defense secretary leon panetta discussing iranian arms in the hands of the iraqi insurgents and the obama administration is confirming that $800 million in military aid where osama bin laden was captured will be held. michael hamlin is director of research and senior policy fellowt ta brookings institute, and he joins us now. michael, we have heard of the iranian arms being used against the american forces in iran, and how do you stop it? is there anything that the administration can do to coerce the iranians to stop supplying arms to insurgents? >> well, it is a great question and serious question, because several hundred americans at a minimum and sol some of your co, the brits, have died at the hands of iranian weaponry. it is a lower number, but now it is rearing its ugly head again. and now iraqi forces have to be the focus there, so if you are focusing on iraq, the border securities are adequate that if president nuri maliki wants to go after the extremists insid
and cut out. >>> the u.s. may decide to withhold millions in military aid to pakistan. this is according to a "new york times" report. the u.s. is said to be unhappy with the efforts that pakistani army has been making against the taliban as well as al qaeda. as well as $800 million in assistance could be suspended. this could cause some major problems. if pakistan takes tougher action, the aid could resume. mean while, defense secretary leon panetta is in afghanistan. panetta is meeting with american military leaders and afghan officials. nbc's atia abawi is in kabul this morning. bring us up to speed on what leon panetta is saying that al qaeda is basically on the run and close to being completely stamped out. >> reporter: good morning, thomas. the new secretary of defense's first trip as the defense secretary here in afghanistan, prior to arriving he talked to reporters on the plane about how he feels alg al qaeda is going right now, the war against terror. he says the strategic defeat of al qaeda is within reach, primarily pointing the the death of bin laden, the information they got
panetta visited in afghanistan. he failed to visit pakistan. what do you think that says about the tension? >> the tension is quite high. frankly unless there is some reversal and lowering of the rhetoric, then i think it's going to spin in a very deep decline. that's not something that's in pakistan's interest on the united states. you need to keep conversations as private as possible sending very strong messages but if we continue to vent our frustrations mutual frustrations ours with the pakistanis and what they have done and fail to do theirs with us in terms of us trying to micro manage what they're doing, then your going to have a break or breach in that relationship. pakistan is a major non-nato ally. allies don't allow things to happen like the hosting of the con sealing of bin laden or the arresting of those who help take bin laden down or allegedly the targeting for assassination of a journalist who's been critical of the regime. these are not the acts of allies. we've got to get back to a level of respect and trust i think that's lacking right now. as a result the relationship i
, which is also the problem of pakistan, becomes a regional problem in which the country's in the region have a stake in solving and are not -- there's a reasonable chance that can be pulled off. >> dr. brzezinski, you mentioned pakistan. the focus of policy leaders. turning away from afghanistan, we got reports the journalist who was killed by the isi inside pakistan further out is complicating our relationship with that group. we announced going in to kill osama bin laden. how do we manage this relationship that's been difficult to manage for as far as the eye can see? >> well, first of all, we have to recognize we are dealing here with two sifrl conflicts. one in afghanistan and the one in pakistan. there's a conflict in pakistan. there isn't a foreign intervention trying to resolve it. it is a great internal conflict. what we are seeing in pakistan is a series of contradictory policies, contradictory engagements and contradictory engagements. the army wants to preserve a stable pakistan that is assured of security and sees the united states as a component of the success in that quest
of pakistan that will bring success to local areas. a country from kabul, it will never happen. we are wasting time and money. the fact we are leaving may assist in the development of stability in local areas. they will never be a centrally governed pakistan, i mean afghanistan. afghanistan is not like iraq. give me one more second and i'll tell you what i think is going to happen in iraq. we'll probably go back to having one bloodthirsty tyrant to rule the country. that's the irony of iraq. >> happy days, wes. >> afghanistan is extraordinarily tribal. it's difficult to have a conversation about afghanistan. one story i loved was one of the things we did in afghanistan when i was working with the civil affairs team, giving out flags to children and local leaders. they would look at the flag and say what is this. you would have to explain, it's your country. there's another thing, i think you brought up a good point, joe. afghanistan is not iraq. you are right. there's a crucial player, though that factors in. that's iran. iran is not only very active and involved, but in addition to that, iran
as well. pat. >> dr. brzezinski, let me talk to you about pakistan. powers flu out, richard nixon tilted, doctor brzezinski was over there looking down the pass. they were a great ally in the cold war. now it looks like we have lost pakistan. have we lost pakistan? if so, why and was it inevitable. >> i think we are losing pakistan. i don't know if we have lost it yet. if we disengage intelligently and engage in the umbrella i have been talking about, her happens we will lose it all together. i think the fault is two way. first of all, we have never been really consistently and comprehensively sensitive to the political interests in having a secure backyard in afghanistan. we just haven't. resently, we played with indi s indians. we give a super nuclear deal to the indians. we did not give it to the pakistanis. there's resentment there. pakistan is coming undone on its own. it's not all our undoing. there's a conflict between the army and society at large. divisions between the army and the military and intelligence. ethnic differences. regional differences in pakistan. plus, this overw
. pakistan? where would you focus your attention? >> pakistan's an important challenge. there's not much we can do about it. we've tried all sorts of things there and nothing seems to work. i would say revitalizing our relationships in asia and the pacific. that's where history the going to be written in the 21st surgeriry. i would say involved there. better relations with ind ka ya with the countries of southeast asia. doing something about our energy situation that we're less vulnerable on vagaries of price and supply that would go a long way. again, i'd focus more at home on competitiveness, on improving our immigration policy. on the quality of our schools. on the quality of our transportation infrastructure and so forth. again, we have got to retore the foundations of american power. that's a prerequisite if we're going to lead in the world either by what we do or our example. >> restoration is the theme. i hope it's the subject of the next book. thanks so much for joining us. >> thanks, andrea. >> it's very provocative richard. >>> a word of warning the images you're about to see is h
pakistan, as we said on the show a number of times. how do we deal with pakistan and at the same time, get out of afghanistan except in terms of special forces or drones to represent our interest and chase down terrorists? meanwhile, you have the greatest tender box in the world, to save a nuclear pakistan with more than 100, probably twice as many with nuclear warheads that can fall into the hands of terrorists. >> the bottom line is, how do we deal with it? >> it's always pakistan is a basket case, a nuclear basket case. stay in afghanistan. >> you don't. you don't. >> it's not going to work. that is washington's argument, mike barnicle. pakistan is stabilized. we have to keep having american troops killed in afghanistan. it doesn't add up. invading cambodia is the right move when you are going into vietnam. >> continuing argument and keep making it because less than 1% of american families and american people are serving in the military in afghanistan. >> there you go. >> back to the draft. >> untouched. >> we need a draft. >> we'll come back the dr. aidan quinn. [ male announcer ] memb
in somalia. in addition to the war in pakistan and libya and iraq and yemen, now the secret ops branch of the military is launching kind of secret drone strikes somalia. what's secret, disclosed, military, intelligence, is quite blurred. cia guy, you run the pentagon. pentagon guy, you run the military. what's the difference? unanimous decision. really big story here, though. the really big gap between the noncontroversy in washington, the lack of political debate about this big picture here, and how unpopular that big picture is in the rest of the country. the hill newspaper released a poll last week showing 72% of the american people think we are involved in too many foreign conflicts overseas, and americans favor removing the u.s. military from afghanistan. 66% of americans oppose the war in iraq. and the public in large part opposes military intervention in libya as well. and in that sort of environment, we confirmed a new cia director and new leader of pentagon with zero did i sent. not to say that these guys personally embody the problem, but where's the debate on this problem? a
near the mountainous border of pakistan. helicopters carrying dozens of elite army rangers race over the rugged landscape. their target is an insurgent compound. the mission is high-risk. it is broad daylight. the insurgents are heavily armed. but it is considered a risk worth taking because if intelligence indicates that a top al qaeda commander is in that compound. soon the helicopters touch down and our rangers immediately come under fire. within minutes leroy, then a staff sergeant, and another soldier are pushing ahead into a courtyard surrounded by high mud walls. that's when the enemy opens up with the ak-47s. leroy is hit in both legs. he is bleeding badly. but he summons the strength to lead the other ranger to cover behind a chicken coop. he radios for support. he hurls a grenade at the enemy giving cover to a third ranger who rushes to their aid. an enemy grenade explodes nearby wounding leroy's two comrades. then, a second grenade lands, this time only a few feet away. every human impulse would tell someone to turn away. every soldier is trained to seek cover. that is wha
was in afghanistan, part of the rugged mountainous region near the border with pakistan that's perfect for hiding out in. sergeant petry's unit was assigned to make a risky daylight raid on a compound why u.s. intelligence said a top al qaeda commander was hiding. the moment the helicopter landed they came under fire. within minutes as they moved into a court yard in the compound a machine gun round went through both of his legs. he was bleedly badly. he nevertheless aided another wounded soldier leaving him to take cover behind a chicken coop in the courtyard. he did this with severe injuries to both of his legs. sergeant petry launched a grenade in the direction of the enemy fighters, who were shooting at the rangers. that provided enough cover for a third ranger to join them behind the chicken coop to evaluate the wounds. an enemy grenade exploded in the courtyard. it further hurt the ranger that he was helping and the third ranger. a second grenade thrown by the energy fighters landed next to the three wounded rangers. it had not exploded yet. sergeant petry dressed his own wound at the time. his
to attack pakistan, they can declare that as a saving too. but here's the problem, and the congressman stated it well. there are aspects of the two plans that are acceptable, and the president has vetoed those, and that is why mitch mcconnell is saying to harry reid, look, you're not going to impose your plan on a senate, 47 members who are republicans, we're going to have to deal. and i think they are going to deal, alex. they're going to send something back over to the house, and i think the house will probably have to pass it on monday or tuesday. >> okay. morris, did you think harry reid has given up too many with this bill, and do you think he's going to have to give up more to get republican support? >> i think there's going to be a lot of compromise. and remember, compromise is not a bad word. in this town, some days compromise seems like a bad word, but that's what you do when you negotiate. when you don't have an absolute majority, you have to give a little to get a little. and for some reason, this town has lost that understanding, that it is really not about whose parties ar
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)